Another Global Warming Lie Bites the Dust

DW: My purview at EPA was across the board. I had the opportunity to study any particular issue that interested me. One of my first encounters with the global warming craze came when our agency was paying out $50,000 so a group from the Dept. of Agriculture could attend a conference on “Methane Emissions from Ruminant Livestock.” Since then I’ve studied the issue in detail.

No, that doesn’t make me a climate expert. But I’m willing to bet I’ve had far greater exposure to every aspect of the problem than you have.

P.S. Just where do you think those Dept. Ag bureaucrats went to study methane emissions? The Chicago stockyards? Nope…. Palm Springs. That caught my attention too.

“Proximity does not equate authority.”

Please tell me where I claimed to be an “authority” Ash?

I made my point quite clearly and I will repeat it because apparently you were not paying attention: I had the opportunity to begin studying this issue many, MANY years ago at EPA and before it became the subject of global hysteria.

And I stand by my contention that I have been studying the issue far longer and in greater depth than the Al Gore parrots who regularly show up here in an attempt to shout down and shut down the public discourse while their comrades in lab jackets try and do the same to the scientific debate.

I see some didn’t bother to read the AGW post with documented legal intimidation and both peer review and media censorship. Or perhaps it’s because they are incapable of understanding lawsuits with discovery as a witch hunt, designed to intimidate the opposition, and filed by govt, officials, or special interests groups is… indeed…. “stifling debate”.

It’s about censorship of opposing scientific foundings in the tech publications and even main stream media.

It’s about threat campaigns by elected officials, trying to dictate to private enterprise who they can donate to and not.

Then again, were such tactics waged against their beloved Sierra Clubs, Code Pink, or other pet causes, the stink raised would circumvent the globe. So we see yet another example of the narcissism of liberals… willing to slam the door on opposition using government, the courts, and media because it interferes with their preconceived BS that it’s “best for the people”. Amazing that these same bozos are the loudest voices for revival of “the fairness doctrine”. Chutzpah…

And to top it off, they think that the phrase “stifling debate” applies to them personally, and their 1st Amendment right…. crying “victim” when they haven’t been victimized.

That one here can actually say, with a straight cyber face, that anyone here would “be so terrified of disagreement on your own blog that you feel that the Lefties who post here might have the power to shut down the debate–even when you have control over which comments get posted. is beyond comprehension. Not to mention, an apt demonstration of an out of control ego – one endowed with a seriously over inflated sense of self import.

Such a statement is based on two serious flaws:

1: Only Curt, the FA “founding father” uses a nuclear option to ban anyone from comments here – and that’s for abusing 1st Amendment rights… not difference of opinion. And I can see that “banning” is a rare instance indeed. The rest of us are guest authors… tho we are in possession of the power to “delete”, I know of none who would do so to silence opposition. We all here know that we, in essence, represent Curt to the cyber world with our posts.

So there are many voices of dissent here, and censorship is non-existent. Some dissenters are actually a pleasure. Others are best ignored as the morning pimple appearing before a school dance. That I can read such a sentence as above here indicates that Curt has far more respect for our liberty than he does the desire to own a blog that only allows tasteful and intelligent contributors. Obviously even the least common denominator in humanity is allowed a voice on FA.

2: “Stifling debate” is not about our personal or cyber conversations on blogs. That is flowing fast and free, and the mere notion is applies to the common man is amazing self-focus. But we are debating with limited documentation and resources by the experts… one side is more heavily weighted than the other because of publication bans on the opposing viewpoint and data. I’d be willing to bet that most have never heard of Robert Carter’s article, the foundation of my “stifling debate” post. It wasn’t exactly widely broadcast, was it?

“Stifling debate” is what I reiterated above, and created a specific post about. It’s not about how some pacifist guppy feels about how his comment is received on a blog.

I’ll repeat this again for the attention and reading deficient: “Stifling debate” is about a documented, concerted campaign to silence opposing scientific views using not only high powered politicians and the most influential media, but also done by the science acadamies that have bastardized their very purpose as non-partisan researchers.

Instead the science community fuels this “stifling debate” in order to advance plans to alter the global economy with global energy mandates. And they further bastardize their base principles by being instrumental in creating the policy with data that is not only incomplete, but constantly morphing… proving their own notions more incorrect with every passing day.

I think Roderik S.W. van de Wal himself gives the best argument against your cherry-picked pseudoscience:

“This study does not show that the melt is decreasing, to the contrary it shows a small increase in ablation which is fully consistent with IPCC predictions concerning melt of the ice sheet. So, no new alarm bells this time from the glaciologists, but the uncertainties concerning outlet glaciers and the effects of sea ice retreat are still in the air and imply that sea level rise estimates might need to be reconsidered.”

You can’t take some results from studies out of context and then say it’s “proof” that global warming doesn’t exist. There may be speculation about when these changes might occur, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t sure to occur if we don’t begin regulating greenhouse gasses.

John L. It’s the warmermongerers who have been cherry picking psuedo science.

Interesting that the warmermongerers insisted we needed a new generation of NASA satellite tools they said would prove global warming but it’s just the opposite.